Table of Contents

Impact of Rape Reform Legislation in Six Major Urban Jurisdictions in the United States, 1970-1985 (ICPSR 6923)

Principal Investigator(s):
Horney, Julie, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Department of Criminal Justice;
Spohn, Cassia, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Department of Criminal Justice

Summary:

Despite the fact that most states enacted rape reform
legislation by the mid-1980s, empirical research on the effect of
these laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time
span following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide
both increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of
the rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Statistical data on all rape cases between 1970
and 1985 in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and
Washington, DC, were collected from court records. Monthly time-series
analyses were used to assess the impact of the reforms on rape
reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations, and
sentences. The study also sought to determine if particular changes,
or particular combinations of changes, affected the case processing
and disposition of sexual assault cases and whether the effect of the
reforms varied with the comprehensiveness of the changes. In each
jurisdiction, data were collected on all forcible rape cases for which
an indictment or information was filed. In addition to forcible rape,
other felony sexual assaults that did not involve children were
included. The names and definitions of these crimes varied from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To compare the pattern of rape reports
with general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults
during the same general time period were also obtained from the
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
when available. For the adjudicated case data (Parts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
and 11), variables include month and year of offense, indictment,
disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of
charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number
of conviction charges, type of disposition, type of sentence, and
maximum jail or prison sentence. The time series data (Parts 2, 4, 6,
8, 10, and 12) provide year and month of indictment, total indictments
for rape only and for all sex offenses, total convictions and
incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for those on the
original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month, and for those
on the original sex offense charge, percents for each indictment,
conviction, and incarceration category, the average maximum sentence
for each incarceration category, and total police reports of forcible
rape in the month. Interviews were also conducted in each site with
judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and this information is
presented in Part 13. These interviewees were asked to rate the importance
of various types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to
a series of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past
sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a
hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12 different
scenarios, and they were asked to make a set
of judgments about each. Interview
data also include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years
in office, and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the
reform.

Despite the fact that most states enacted rape reform
legislation by the mid-1980s, empirical research on the effect of
these laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time
span following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide
both increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of
the rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Statistical data on all rape cases between 1970
and 1985 in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and
Washington, DC, were collected from court records. Monthly time-series
analyses were used to assess the impact of the reforms on rape
reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations, and
sentences. The study also sought to determine if particular changes,
or particular combinations of changes, affected the case processing
and disposition of sexual assault cases and whether the effect of the
reforms varied with the comprehensiveness of the changes. In each
jurisdiction, data were collected on all forcible rape cases for which
an indictment or information was filed. In addition to forcible rape,
other felony sexual assaults that did not involve children were
included. The names and definitions of these crimes varied from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To compare the pattern of rape reports
with general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults
during the same general time period were also obtained from the
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
when available. For the adjudicated case data (Parts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
and 11), variables include month and year of offense, indictment,
disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of
charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number
of conviction charges, type of disposition, type of sentence, and
maximum jail or prison sentence. The time series data (Parts 2, 4, 6,
8, 10, and 12) provide year and month of indictment, total indictments
for rape only and for all sex offenses, total convictions and
incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for those on the
original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month, and for those
on the original sex offense charge, percents for each indictment,
conviction, and incarceration category, the average maximum sentence
for each incarceration category, and total police reports of forcible
rape in the month. Interviews were also conducted in each site with
judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and this information is
presented in Part 13. These interviewees were asked to rate the importance
of various types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to
a series of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past
sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a
hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12 different
scenarios, and they were asked to make a set
of judgments about each. Interview
data also include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years
in office, and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the
reform.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Horney, Julie, and Cassia Spohn. Impact of Rape Reform Legislation in Six Major Urban Jurisdictions in the United States, 1970-1985. ICPSR06923-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06923.v1

Unit of Observation:
(1) Adjudicated cases data: the rape case, (2)
Time series data: month and year of indictment, and (3) interview data:
individuals.

Universe:
All rape cases in the United States, prior to and after
legislative reforms.

Data Type(s):
event/transaction data, aggregate data, and survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The user guide, codebook, and data collection instrument are
provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader
software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a
copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided in the README file on the diskette
version of this study and through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The overall goal of the rape reform movement
begun in the early 1970s was to treat rape like other crimes by
shifting the legal inquiry from the behavior or reputation of the
victim to the unlawful acts of the offender. Rape law reform was urged
as a method to encourage more victims to report rapes and to cooperate
with criminal justice officials in prosecuting rapists. By the
mid-1980s, nearly all states had enacted rape reform legislation.
Reform statutes enacted by the states varied in comprehensiveness and
encompassed a broad range of reforms. The most common changes were:
(1) redefining rape and replacing the single crime of rape with a
series of graded offenses defined by the presence or absence of
aggravating conditions, (2) changing the consent standards by
eliminating the requirement that the victim physically resist her
attacker, (3) eliminating the requirement that the victim's testimony
be corroborated, and (4) placing restrictions on the introduction of
evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual conduct. Reformers
expected that enacting these laws would reduce both the skepticism of
criminal justice officials toward the claims of rape victims and their
reliance on extralegal considerations in decision-making. They
anticipated that the reforms ultimately would lead to an increase in
the number of reports of rape and would make arrest, prosecution, and
conviction for rape more likely. Despite the fact that most states
enacted rape law reforms, empirical research on the effect of these
laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time span
following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide both
increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of the
rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Breadth was
provided by an examination of the impact of the laws on the processing
and disposition of rape cases in six major jurisdictions (Atlanta,
Chicago, Detroit, Washington, DC, Houston, and Philadelphia) from 1970
to 1985. The purpose in selecting these six jurisdictions was to
determine if particular changes, or particular combinations of
changes, affected the case processing and disposition of sexual
assault cases and whether the effect of the reforms varied with the
comprehensiveness of the changes. Depth was provided by supplementing
these longitudinal data with information from interviews with criminal
justice personnel.

Study Design:
In each jurisdiction, data were collected from
court records on all forcible rape cases for which information or
indictments were filed for an extended time before and after the
changes in the laws. In addition to forcible rape, other felony sexual
assaults that did not involve children were included. The names and
definitions of these crimes varied from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Separate analyses were performed for rape and for total
sex offenses. When rape law reforms included definitional changes, the
closest equivalent crimes were selected for the analysis of rapes
after the legal changes. For four sites, the data collected covered a
14-year period, from 1970 through 1985. For Washington, DC, the
analysis started with 1973 because the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia was given jurisdiction over felony cases beginning that
year. The Houston analysis ends in August 1982 because of problems
with lost data after that point. The number of months analyzed before
and after the reforms varied somewhat, depending on when the law was
reformed in each state. To compare the pattern of rape reports with
general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults during
the same general time period were obtained from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports when available. Monthly
time-series analyses were performed to assess the impact of the
reforms on rape reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations,
and sentencing. Interviews were also conducted in each site with
judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to obtain their attitudes
toward evidence in sexual assault cases. Standardized interview
schedules asked the interviewees to rate the importance of various
types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to a series
of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past
sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a
hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12
different scenarios, presented in random order, and they were asked to
make a set of judgments about each.

Sample:
(1) Six jurisdictions were chosen to represent various
types of law reforms enacted in states across the country: Detroit and
Chicago (strong reforms), Philadelphia and Houston (moderate), and
Atlanta and Washington, DC (weak). (2) For the interview data, a
purposive sample of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders was
chosen in each jurisdiction.

Description of Variables:
For the adjudicated case data, the following
information was coded: month and year of offense, indictment,
disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of
charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number
of conviction charges, type of disposition (dismissal, guilty plea,
guilty or not guilty verdict, verdict by judge or jury), type of
sentence (probation, jail, prison, other), and maximum jail or prison
sentence. The time series data provide year and month of indictment,
total indictments for rape only and for all sex offenses, total
convictions and incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for
those on the original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month,
and for those on the original sex offense charge, percents for each
indictment, conviction, and incarceration category, the average
maximum sentence for each incarceration category, and total police
reports of forcible rape in the month. Total reports of burglary and
assault are also provided for Detroit and Houston. Interview data
include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years in office,
and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the
reform. Responses to six hypothetical cases are provided regarding
whether sexual history evidence should be admitted. Respondents were
also asked to rate various types of evidence as irrelevant, helpful,
important, or essential to the decision to file charges or to the
outcome of a jury trial. Finally, responses to the 12 hypothetical
case scenarios included the expected disposition, the likelihood of a
hearing on sexual history evidence, the likelihood that sexual history
evidence would be admitted, the likely result of a jury trial, and the
expected sentence in years.

Response Rates:
Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used for the interview data.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 1998-05-01

Version History:

2006-03-30 File CB6923.ALL was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File CB6923.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.